Slashdot Mirror
EU Says Microsoft's Abuses Are Ongoing
levell writes "Although the legal difficulties Microsoft was having in the US seem to be drawing to a close, it's not yet over in the EU. In this story, the BBC reports that the EU says it is still abusing its monopoly with Windows Media Player, and perhaps more interestingly from a Linux point of view, also in the low-end server market. The story is also being covered on CNN, Ananova, Reuters, etc." The EU's press release is informative.
Let me get this straight... you want MS to stop giving away bundled software for free so competitors (many of whom are free..i.e.Open Office) can compete? Where's the logic in that one?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Sure they have a monopoly, ie so dominant market share that they could do just about what ever they wish if there weren't anti-monopoly laws.
Like, if MS required every big computer maker to actively hamper using linux on their machines or they wouldn't give them OEM Windows license, how many of the computer makers could affort to decline without going out of business very fast? Or if they wouldn't approve (XP style) any drivers or give DirectX support for any graphcis card maker that didn't keep it's specs secret and release drivers for Win only.
So I'd say it's definitely a monopoly, because only anti-monopoly laws are preventing them from doing stuff like above.
The EU represents the 2nd largest trade area on the planet, and can fine companies who wish to trade in the EU who break competition rules in the EU. And when people next go "that won't hurt MS" remember that the fine is proportionate to the market and the level of control.
So how about a fine equal to the sales over the period of the infringement. And restrictions on the sale of MS products.
And the best bit is that the EU actually has a spine here as its a great chance to piss of a US company, which lets face it they are hardly going to resist.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Thanks to the 'wonderful' computing monoculture that has developed, we are at the mercy of the Redmond monster. So what if the EU fines them, they have $50 billion (US) in the bank to deal with such 'troublesome quarrels'.
The only way the beast can be stopped is a change in technology, such as the way IBM was finally put down (thanks to a creature of their own development, no less).
It isn't Microsoft that's initially to blame for this monoculture, it's the massive numbers of PHB's who subscribe to the 'Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft' (or IBM in the old days) mentality that permeates IT purchasing.
No it isn't.
It's vague and makes a few general allegations, but provides not even a hint of specifics or proof.
An overwhelming majority of customers responding to this market enquiry highlighted that Microsoft's non-disclosure of interface information - necessary for competing servers to properly "talk" with Windows PCs and servers - did indeed artificially alter their choice in favour of Microsoft's server products.
To "talk" with windows PCs? Huh? You mean SMB? ODBC? DCOM? Oh wait, those are all known.
They must be talking about ActiveDirectory, right? That's more of a nice new feature than a necessity for business. Will it be the case that every new feature MSFT comes up with must be given away to all?
The Media Player thing is stupid too. It's already "uncoupled" from the OS. You need not install or use it, they even made a special little control panel applet to "uninstall" it. If someone made a better media player, I'd be using it right now.
If the EU wanted to actually make a difference, and not headlines, they'd push linux in their own governments. THEY set the standard everyone follows. People use excel, word and access because that's what the federales use.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
In theory, how much control does the EU have over Microsoft?
If they want to trade in the EU you have to observe EU (and member states') laws. Simple as that. If you're guilty of something you'll have to pay the fine, then adjust your working practices so you come into line.
Might this mean Windows EU edition?
--
This sig is inoffensive.
According to both the CNN and BBC articles, the EU is having an issue with M$ 'using its market postion in an abusive manner to crush competitors to its Windows Media Player.' According to the articles, those competitors happen to be Quicktime and RealPlayer. Now it might just be me, but i am pretty sure that neither one of those players has ever been a real competitor to Media Player. Realplayer has certainly tried to beat them in the realm of streaming content, but due to such little things as shit for quality and lack of content, they didn't do so well. Quicktime has really always been a Mac format, and was brought over to windows for some reason or other, and while it has done fairly well, never really got quite big, despite the fact that it used compression tech that was way ahead of its time back in the day, but with divx, xvid and 3vix out, just cant really compete anymore. So to sum up, the EU is accusing M$ of abusing its market power to include a product that is evolving with technology to 'put down' legacy media players?? That's like accusing an accounting firm of using something other than COBOL to write the latest version of accounting software because its not fair to COBOL, despite the fact that it's a dead horse being held up by poles.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
How is it any different than Red Hat bundling Mozilla and mplayer with their distro?
There are other companies trying to make money from media players, eg Apple, Real
Microsoft is denying them this opportunity by bundling their own software with the OS. Punters are less likely to go and buy from Apple or Real.
Competition is good. This is bad.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
If you read the article, you must have seen possible solutions are a windows without MS media player or a 'must-carry': a non-microsoft media player.
I Think this should apply to all products that com with a distribution. Browsers, media players, java, IM, archivers,...
Only this way the competition gets a fair choice from the customer.
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime. If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
And if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player? Even if microsoft would give it away? Or can't they give it away because that too is monopoly abuse? Is the "abuse" from microsoft really caused to any major extent by "features" in their products? Don't think so...
Did that sound pro m$? I better put the flameproof suit on.
You guys are BOTH off the mark:
/that/ unportable. They travel rather well, as they don't weigh a whole lot and are thin, like you say. Being thin lends itself to fitting in bags more than being just an inch or two less wide, I find.
1. OS X is based on FreeBSD and NeXTSTEP, which contain no AT&T or SCO code. SCO doesn't want a piece of that action.
2. Apple isn't a monopoly because they don't use their technology leverage to hurt competition.
3. The 17" PowerBooks are a bit unportable, but they're still not
4. Why are you comparing the highest-end PowerBook with a super-low-end Dell notebook. What are the specs on this eight-hundred-dollar miracle notebook? Got a 6-pin FireWire port, two USB ports, 802.11g integrated, Bluetooth that works well, a combo drive or SuperDrive, like the 12" PB? I'll pull the "it runs OS X" card on this, too, just to be a troll like you.
Meh.
No chance of any competition in that model. Ever.
A big danger is DRM being added into the chain, then Microsoft would have 100% say over who makes files, who reads files, when and where they can read files, and who can make programs that read, write or modify files. And just to make the lock-in complete, 100% control over determining the life span of the file format. No more 100 year old archives.
If the EU starts down that path by using encumbered file formats, it steps on the rights of countries where access to government information is a constitutional right. Sweden and Finland are two such countries where information has been open by default as part of the constitution. There may be other countries, but even countries with weaker freedom of information need to use open formats.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
That is exactly why they won't make things 'pluggable'.
They will include a simple control panel to disable the features, and thus cripple part of the computer's functionality. Making things 'pluggable' invites competition -- a big no-no. Instead, they'll just say "fine, you don't like it? Here's how to rip it out. Object to the way we put this feature in? Ok, here's how to cripple your product so that's not an issue."
First of all, it's easy to not install Windows Media Player, or replace it with another App. See "Program Access and Defaults" icon that is on the start menu!
Second, Microsoft is accused of leveraging its dominant position from PCs into low-end servers, the computers which provide core services to PCs in corporate networks.
The EU wants Microsoft to disclose more code to its competitors, to allow them to make sure their systems can work together with Microsoft's rather than being disadvantaged by Microsoft's dominant market position.
Why on Earth should microsoft have to do this? I just can think of no explanation why they should be FORCED to give away their code and secrets. If the EU forces this through, it's going to be the deathknell of traditional commercial software in Europe--will every other company who has a dominant App have to open the code or be given the boot from Europe?
And why is no one in Europe worried about Apple? OS X includes EVEN MORE apps than does Windows--the only difference is not as many people use OS X.
Dude, take a look around. Microsoft is selling real computer HARDWARE now. You might argue that this is no different from Apple, but Apple doesn't have its own internet service, game box, news network, major Office package, CRM, media center software, tablet PC OS, Palm platform, enterprise server solution... I could go on and on. The real deal is that monopolies do not protect us from market abuses like ill-planned software. Only good competition can do that. That's why the litigation is so important, and we can thank Teddy Roosevelt for that.
BS. Microsoft has been found guilty in a court of law of uncompetitive behaviour. Like any sensible business they do not like competition, and they work damn hard to block out competition. But because they have a dominant market share there is a necessary requirement for them to be kept in check.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Microsoft bundles things like IE and WMP so users have a browser and media player when they install their own OS. Taking them out is not the solution, since many will be left without such things. Forcing the company to stick competitors products in their own product is not necessarily the way to go, but is perhaps a solution to all the bitching and moaning going on.
Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players? Sure, there's other choices outside the KDE RPMs (or whatever distribution method you use), but people have a choice of OSes, too - don't install it and install linux instead.
This whole thing has gotten out of hand, IMO. I guess if a company is successful, they obviously must be doing something illegal, huh?
You know, if they paid more corporation tax maybe they wouldn't be in such hot water.
They can't use the line "but we pay X in tax to the govt., we're good for the local economies"
rather than "we cost US jobs by having our products packaged in Mexico for a pittance and we pay as little tax as possible"
Instead you've got the "Gates Institute" and free condoms for Indians, not much of a payoff.
They should have learned the McDonalds way and properly invested in grass roots so that people think they are cool when they just poison children for a living.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This confirms the Commission's preliminary conclusion that Microsoft's tying of Windows Media Player to the Windows operating system weakens competition on the merits, stifles product innovation, and ultimately reduces consumer choice.
Well... here is my take...
Users like one-stop shopping. You buy a computer, you can surf the web, you can listen to music, you can play games, you can do all that stuff without having to first hook up to the Internet to download even *more* stuff or buy even *more* stuff to make it work like you expect that it should.
Few things I have ever seen infuriate a customer more than buying something and then realizing that what they bought was incomplete and that they have to get/buy even more stuff to make it do what they want.
The inclusion of IE in Windows was a big hullabaloo. At the time it was introduced, it was very much inferior to the other offerings out there, but did allow the user to browse the web. So, Microsoft saw that a browser with extentions could replace the file/system viewer Explorer so they merged the two things - far easier to have one thing that does both than have two development teams doing basically the same things maintaining two seperate code bases. That's why IE became integral to the OS - because it was also the viewer for everything from the file system to the control panel to a file viewer. Removing IE would remove the capability to do any of that.
Having IE bundled didn't prevent you from loading any other browser that was your favorite, but it did offer (some say) superior Internet Browser features to others at the time so users felt little reason to use anything else. It was good enough for users, they didn't have to get/buy more software to make their pooter work so they used it. Very simple.
Same with MediaPlayer. Users expect to be able to listen to music or play videos on their computer now from the instant they plug it into the wall. Microsoft delivers a way for them to do it. They improve it, and now it is "good enough" for most folks and they don't have to get/buy something extra to have this functionality. Very simple.
Personally, I wouldn't use/buy ANY computer that didn't come bundled with some form of web browser and a media player of some sort. Very frequently, no matter the OS I choose, the one that comes bundled is good enough to do exactly what I want to do (I'm not an audiophile and I don't have special web browsing needs like special sites that are browser specific. I do like WinAMP better than MediaPlayer though so I tend to install it on all the Windows boxes I use but the default stuff delivered with whatever Linux distro that I have loaded is good enough.)
So, does it stifle competition? I guess it does in the way that there is no need for me to buy yet-another DVD viewer program for my PS2. (Where is all the hubbub about that? The PS2 is in a very dominant position in that market.) However, these functions are becoming basic services that *have* to be delivered with an OS these days for the common users.
Again, most users just want to use what they buy without additional fuss (having to get even more stuff to make it work in basic functions like web browsing and playing music/videos).
In some ways, computer OSs these days are evolving more towards set-top boxes in many ways as the list of "basic services" the thing has to provide become longer and longer. There was a time when listening to music, watching videos, and such things were add-ons. You got these apps when you bought a video card or a sound card. Today, most users consider these to be basic functionality rather than add-ons. An OS that does not deliver these services in at least some basic capacity will not succeed. All the Linux distros know this as well and likewise deliver these basic services.
well, it is obviously funny, but the difference between Apple doing it and Microsoft doing it is that Microsoft is in a near-monopoly situation, and has minimal rights to take use of competitor measurements (I sound like a suit!). While there already were two major competitors on the market, Real and Apple QT, Microsoft went in with its own format, and since the Microsoft platform comes with this option in the installation (and most pre-installs have everything installed, at least the home users) the other two have to be downloaded first (and maybe even be acknowledged for their existence). Remember that Microsoft controls the market for people that don't know better.
(yes this can be compared with sex)
Its perverted thinking to claim that you deserve to have no competition from bigger companies
Fine. Let Microsoft sell the media player to you as an addon at the market price.
Thing is they won't because they're making a loss on the WMP (and everything except the OS and Office) so that no-one else can gain a foothold in the market.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
This is different because there are other distros that are compatible with Red Hat (ie Linux) binaries and compatible with Mozilla and mplayer files. Not only are there distros that bundle other web browsers and media players, anyone can build their own system, and Red Hat also bundles other browsers and media players. Linux users and even Red Hat users have a choice to have any browser and media player be the first and only installed.
Microsoft also happens to be the company that developed WMP and IE. Do they bundle software that they don't own? Red Hat did not develop Mozilla, mplayer, or most of the other software that comes with their system.
How is it that Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Microsoft Outlook can come out of nowhere and domininate before anyone can blink? Why is it that many OEMs get queasy when customers ask about Windows-free computers? Why is it that the only growing software companies do so by packaging otherwise free products? Why is it that Microsoft's means of competing against Linux are through the legal system via SCO rather than competing in the free market?
Microsoft are an abberation--a cancer--on the world's markets and governments. When corporations become more powerful than their governments, the trump card lies with the people. If the governments won't or can't respond, then consumers everywhere need to make a conscience decision to support diversity, competition, and freedom.
Each purchase of a Microsoft product is a vote for a proprietary technocracy with a Microsoft Certified ruling class. Do you really want that? I don't!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
From the EU's press release:
"As regards remedies, the Commission has provisionally identified the core disclosure obligations that would be indispensable for Microsoft's competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. Microsoft would be obliged to reveal the necessary interface information so that rival vendors of low-end servers are able to compete on a level playing-field with Microsoft."
So...Samba benefits. Anyone trying to interoperate with Exchange benefits (I'd presume MAPI would be one of the protocols). People trying to do integration with Active Directory Services benefit. That's the real meat of the notice. The media player is attracting attention, but it's not the most important half by far.
Cheers,
Ian
If you're Swiss then you do live in Europe, the continent. You probably ment that you do not live in the EU (European Union, which the Swiss are not apart of)
EU budget decifit? What EU budget deficit? This is just another of those anti-EU scare stories. The EU as an institution isn't able to run a budget deficit, because the tab for whatever it spends is picked up by the member states (and with a total bugdet running at around 1% of the EU's GDP, that's not too much of a burden).
Now it's true that many EU member states are running budget deficits (what country isn't these days) but that's entirely independent, and certainly the actions of the EU commission will not be motivated by the marginal effect on the budget deficits of individual countries.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
The market would have taken care of itself
The market can only take care of itself if it's not rigged.
If you cross-subsidise products that gives you an unfair advantage and destroys the free market in that sector. Then market forces cease to work well.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
China is already a Superpower:
.
1. The yuan has been fixed at a rate of 8.2770 to the dollar since 1995
2. Largest standing military in the world.
3. Next country to go to the moon.
4. Screw Wintel, They have V-Dragon Midori Linux on a better platform
Science is the Real TRUTH!
SCO's FUD campaign didn't survive five minutes in the German legal system, Microsoft is not going to get government permission to do anything the want to like in the U.S., and I don't think O.J. would be playing golf right now if the trial had been anywhere in Europe. America's legal system in increasingly becomming a liability to the U.S: With a bit of luck, Europe will be free of the lead weight of the Microsoft monoploy in a few years, while Americans will still be paying their Redmond tax.
When pimply-faced teenagers assert that they can download MP3s because "the law is wrong", they face a barrage of righteous indignation from those who say they have a moral obligation to follow the law as it is written.
When a giant multinational corporation continues to use its monopoly status to manipulate the market because "the law is wrong", we're all just supposed to let it slide.
How is it any different than Red Hat bundling Mozilla and mplayer with their distro?
Questions like this are representative of the naivete of most computer users. The difference between Red Hat and Microsoft: Red Hat bundles software to compete--to surive--, whereas Microsoft bundles software to kill.
In an ecosystem of healthy competition, bundled software is a means of adding value (it sort of like women putting on makeup: "Hey, look at me! I'm prettier, now!"). However, when one company has managed to gain 90+% market share, the ecosystem has died, and there is no longer a notion of adding value, when there is nothing left to compare it to. There is no upstart company that can hope to compete, when there isn't even room to take root.
You simply don't understand the scale of Microsoft. Their market share on desktop computers is frightening. Even Sun, I bet, makes more money off of Java developers developing on Windows than they do on Solaris, Mac OS, and Linux-based developers combined. I have read that Microsoft's pocket change is sufficient to buy entire other industries, such as the airlines (all of the airlines), and still have plenty of money left over.
Microsoft is the figurative grey goo of the software industry, where they consume to the point of gluttony leaving a wasteland behind them. Their goals are ultimately destructive, and they have no qualms about killing companies to advance their own dominance. In no way, is Microsoft anyone's friend.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
First off, I was just using that as an example.
Of what? You've come up with a scenario with a snide 'I doubt it' response, without even bothering to check your facts.
The point being that many of the arguements that people use against Microsoft could also apply to some of the Linux distributions.
Just goes to show you don't understand the argument beyond the superficial level. Redhat/Mandrake/whoever are not cross-subsidising development of RealPlayer, thereby rigging the free market.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
Microsoft has a history of pushing closed standards and protocols out to the masses, and their monopoly status is the ONLY reason this is possible.
If Microsoft didn't enable MSFT-ONLY, PROPRIETARY codecs, their bundling of a media player would be a non issue. The same applies to IE and IE-only tags. I guess this doesn't matter to people who are in love with Windows XP.
You can't compare free software to jailware. Redhat doesn't add proprietary codecs to Xine, and then roll it out to millions of people in it's up2date service.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
1) If the company is obviously abusing it's near or total monopoly, definitely
2) They're not talking about shitting down MS, they're talking about stiff fines and (hopefully useful) regulations for MS to follow.
3) It's not simply "the government" since any result will be no doubt be put before the courts.
How is MS one of the best (US) companies? It's certainly not at the forefornt of innovations or reliability. If you want to help your economy the last thing you want is a lot of MS like companies:
1) MS is ridiculously profitable precisely *because* it abuses it's monopoly (in any free market those profit margins would have been squeezed by a nice little price war agree ago).
2) MS doesn't use all that capital very productively. Apart from employing relatively few people for a company of their revenue size, they tend to use their massive cash reserves to enter new sectors where they stifle innovation by (trying to) destroying the competition with mediocre products at low prices.
The question whether or not MS has competition is not the issue. The issue is whether MS abuses it's (near) monopoly position to keep competition down (both in the OS and in other markets)
The bundled microsoft software tried to force you to use their codecs and their 'standards' which are not interoperable. Their 'free' programs cost a lot more than nothing in the long run because they lock you into their world. Those free tools from competitors are often interoperable. (Realplayer is an exception, I use realplayer as often as I use WMP, which is 'never.') You can get the source to OpenOffice and make your own program that reads and writes the format.
We're not complaining about the bundling itself, we're complaining about the fact that the bundling forces hordes of unknowing users to be locked into a microsoft world. If MSFT's free tools worked with open standards, there would be no complaints.
This is why MSFT's 'radio' argument is invalid. They said that nobody claimed that auto manufacturers were uncompetitive because they 'bundled' a certain type of radio with their products, so why is MSFT being hounded? The answer of course is that a bundled Ford radio does not force you to listen only to radio stations that paid for a 'Ford FM Radio Transmitter license'.
Actually, if your code is properly modularized there's not problem removing a browser a media player a GUI or any other component. The problem is that M$ has spagetti codeded their dinky browser so their computers won't even boot without one. I'd say that limits the usefulness of the OS. People who would like to use it as a server platform with they could turn off most of these "features" aka services in the free world.
I can use mozilla as my (default) browser if I want to, or play mpgs per default with quicktime.
That's very hard to do and Microsoft takes every chance to undo your preference. I know, I tried with Windows 2000. I wanted to look at a CD with Portable Net Graphics and AVI movies on it. IE flunked both, Mozilla worked flawlessly. IE did not make Quicktime it's prefered viewer and WMP would not display PNG of AVI. That's pathetic because AVI is M$ format closely related to WMP formats and PNG is an openly published format. Mozilla was not the default browser and keeping it up to date is like hell on an M$ box. Just getting Mozilla requires a broadband connection, and knowledge you are unlikely to have in the Windoze world.
If red hat had a monopoly-like market share, then shipping a free media player (the KmovieKplayer 9) would be monopoly abuse because it would limit sales of 3rd party media players?
No, Red Hat does not have a dominant market position and Red Hat can not prevent others from using Kmovieplayer or any other free software anyway they would like. Microsoft has both of these.
if microsoft would have media player on a separate download/cd people would buy Real's player?
Real used to have a dominant makret position.
Did that sound pro m$?
No, just ignorant. A typical Astroturf troll at worst.
I better put the flameproof suit on.
Don't bother.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft has as much of a monopoly as consumers give them through direct software purchases, or indirect purchases through PC vendors they support. The solution is not litigation to protect ignorant consumers from themselves. The solution is education to inform consumers of other, possibly more suitable software solutions. As it stands, consumers are choosing Microsoft, and governments should not interfere with that choice.
If Microsoft's software is as inferior as we, the open source software community, say it is, then it should not be difficult to compete against that software based on quality, features, and usability. If open source software is not up to snuff, then people will either directly or indirectly choose Windows and we need to work on the quality of our products. If open source software is good enough, though, then we don't need to waste our time supporting litigation that will at most be a minor setback for Microsoft. We need to, instead, work on marketing strategies.
In any case, supporting litigation against Microsoft is a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent improving open source software and educating users so they can make informed choices about the software they purchase and use.
It's not just a problem of what's installed. It's also a problem of what can't be removed. IE can not be uninstalled from Windows. (Before anyone points to ways to uninstall or hide the desktop icon try removing the core DLLs. It'll either block it because they're in memory or crash your OS.) At least up to Win2K the media player can not be completely uninstalled either.
A linux distro may come with only one browser or media player, but no one commercial distro has been labeled a desktop monopoly. Being a monopoly changes the rules.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsofts desktop monopoly lies in MS Office not Media Player. If you try flogging Linux to businesses the first question isn't "can I play my Windows Media Player files it's can I open my MS Office docs on it with 100% accuracy.
EU missed the point, altogether!
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Your analogy is deeply flawed.
Try factoring in the fact that when you buy your Ford, with your 'cheap radio' you can only listen to Ford radio stations.
-Nex
This sig has been deprecated.
I think the two posters above have the combined IQ of 4! I guess stupidity loves company as well. Captitlisms most important aspect is competition. If you remove competition, you no longer have captitalism. MS destroys capitalism by their monopolistic practices. They keep undocumented API's to give their other product offering an advantage. They have closed document formats to prevent competitors to compete against them and a slew of other unethical practices.
Think of it like this. I am a producer of TV's and 95% of the world use my TV. Now there are tons of companies out there that would love to offer VCR's, DVD players, digital recorders, sound systems, etc. However, I keep the internals of the TV secret so that my other sub-divisions (which happen to make these products) can have a better advantage in the market place. I make all my money from selling these TV's so I give away a VCR with each TV purchase. I am losing money on the development and distribution of those VCR's, however, I just pass along that expense to my TV division and all is well. I just killed off the competition and have full control over the market. In capitalism, it is the market that is supposed to control things and not one dominant monopoly in that market. This is the problem with MS and it is sad more people do not see it. There are a bunch of Libertarians screeming for the government to stay out of it because the market will fix itself. While I am not a Libertarian, I do agree that less government is often a better government. Howver, in the case of MS, the market cannot fix itself. MS has too much of a stronhold on the entire market and are able to control all the protocols, API's, multimedia and document formats. With that kind of control there cannot be captialism. No other player is allowed to even try to compete.
Trying to compare Open Source/Free Software with MS is just silly. Open Source is well, OPEN. ANYONE can use it to compete and offer different/better offerings. No one is forced to use any one Open Source product. NO Open Source product I know of has hidden API's, closed protocols and document formats to stop others from competing or interacting with it. Red Hat includes thousands of apps with their OS and NONE of them are required. You can install Mozilla, Galeon, MozillaPhoenix, Opera, Konq, Netscape, lynx, links, elinks, w3m, etc. With MS, IE is no longer a stand alone product and is incorporated into the OS. They used their dominant desktop OS position to get their browser to the dominant position. They are now doing this with their media player by embedding it into longhorn. This means that MS can make proprietary changes to HTML (which they have) and now you are locked out of that content UNLESS you buy their OS. They are now trying to do this with multimedia. Soon, to watch or listen to any media you will be required to give MS money by purchasing their products. If MS stuck to standards and published ALL of their protocols, document formats, etc they would not be in court for being a monopoly. Most people do not care about the size of MS, they care about the amount of control that MS has grabbed and are continuing to grab. A monopoly is devistating to a society based on captialism, and it saddens me to see how many Americans just don't give a sh*t. I hope the EU will give MS a kick in the *ss unlike the slap on the wrist the corrupted US government gave them. If MS is not stopped in some way, then in about 10 years time, you will be required to pay MS in one form or another to have ANY interaction with a computer system.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Tell us dunces what powers the government has given itself over the course of the MS trial. The government has brought charges to companies liek this before. It has also fined companies, broken up companies, and regulated their actions before. None of these are new.
If I make a better product, how is that anti-competitive
That's not what people are complaining about. MS Put out a product good enough to obtain a monopoly. Which is fine. Then they saw an emergin market where people were making money (Netscape used to sell web browsers). MS then bought a browser from a nother company, turned it into IE, and gave it away for free for the express purpose of driving Netscape out of the market. To help speed up the process, it was made into an essential part of the OS with Windows 98 (I believe 95a even). Think about that. To uninstall the browser you would have to break the OS. They then forced OEMs, using their legaly obtained monopoly position, to shut out competitors, AOL and Netscape pre-installed or even icons on the desktop. You would have to be a complete, freaking, idiot to think that the first versions of IE were better. But the majority of consumers just use whatever is there already, not realising there is a choice. By the time IE was good enough to compete on technical merit, MS had run Netscape out of the browser market. (I know they still make browsers, but IE has 90%+ market penetration). The illegal tactics are the leveraging of the desktop OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from distributing competing products (implemented by non-uniform licensing), and selling a product in a separate market at a loss, to drive out competition (use profits from the OS market to sustain distributing IE at a loss in the browser market). They are doing the same thing with the media player, AFTER being convicted of their original anti-competitive behavior.
You say that the intent of the government is correct in this case, and that somehow justifies the use of force.I know its cliche to say this, but Commumism had a good intent too. Intent never justifies force, except in self-defense, and I don't think that MS was threatening to attack the US
MS is attacking consumers, by artificially driving out competition and keeping prices artificially high. The Justice Department and State Attorneys General act in defense of the consumers. Get a clue.
Can you honestly tell me that if it was your company making the os and you also made a media app that you wouldn't add it to your os as well??? I highly doubt it.
I can't help but feel we've been here a million times before, but here goes for the 1,000,001st...
MS has - or at least was judged at the time of the US court case to have - a monopoly on the OS market. It is illegal to exploit a monopoly in one market to gain one in another, for reasons which I hope are obvious. Thus MS cannot simply add applications into Windows. Doing so would give them an unfair advantage over their competitors, and the whole purpose of consumer capitalism - to let competition drive up living standards - would be defeated.
Nonetheless, not only did MS break the law and incorporate new applications into their monopoly OS, they made it impossible to uninstall them. A more flagrant violation of both the letter and the spirit of the anti-trust laws is hard to imagine.
So yes, if I made an OS and a media app I would want to bundle the two together. But if I had a monopoly in either market, it would be illegal for me to actually do so; and we should all be glad of that.
1. Windows is not a monopoly. The existance of Linux refutes this claim. If you try to to refute this, good luck. The law is so vague (in the US anyway) that the definition is left to the whim of a judge.
2. Do you really want the govt. to dictate what defines a software product? What happens if Linux becomes the dominant OS? Do you really want to deal with lawsuits by the govt telling Red Hat they can't bundle xanim or mozilla because it's anticompetitve. The SCO case is bad enough. You're just setting yourselves up to get screwed in the future if you give the govt this power.
Vote for Pedro
You are failing to consider something. Its not a question of force. Its a question of who is in charge. The government has to be in charge because it is accountable to everyone. Microsoft is accountable only to its shareholders. Your point about the government controlling any company it wants is illogical. The government cannot dictate to a company or anyone else except by law and due process. And if the laws the government passess are unconstitutional, they are thrown out by the courts. If the laws are unpopular, the government is thrown out at the next election.
Microsoft had its due process. It is now a matter of factual record that Microsoft's present position is not due to a better product, but to abuse of their monopoly position. And that behaviour was and is contrary to the law. There is no debate about this. To what extent the government should act to correct this is open to debate. That's called politics and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
You don't remember the past nor can you think very far into the future...
MS bundles Media Player 9 with its OS, and makes it the MIME of choice when running IE. MS DOES NOT release versions of Media Player 9 which could run on other Operating Systems, nor will they include RealPlayer or QuickTime with their OS. They continually tweak MP9 so that CodeWeaver's plugins fail and reverse engineering takes longer than tweaking. (Remember OS/2 vs Win 3.0?)
What do most WinXX users do? The same thing they did with IE vs Netscape. Even though Netscape was superior to IE 1.0, folks used IE anyway because it was easier than downloading and installing Netscape. Result: IE was 'free' (actually the price was hidden in the overall cost of WinXX) but Netscape cost money, so MS destroyed Nescape's market position. (Since then they have more than made up for the IE 'loss leader' with huge increases in license fees.) Websites began designing for IE over Netscape, and folks remaining with older releases of Netscape were met with messages advising "update to IE" when browsing websites that were formerly browser neutral. Advantage: monopoly.
Today, many streaming audio and video sites have eliminated RealPlayer and QuickTime and made their stream available only on the MediaPlayer 9 format. If you don't run WinXX then you can't see/hear the stream. Advantage: monopoly.
Consider this: MS has recently purchased a Romanian Anti-Virus software company, and will bundle it with their OS. If you own stock on Symantec you should sell it while it is still worth something, because when you can protect your WinXX installation from viruses ONLY with the bundled AV software from MS, you know that by then Symantec will be worthless. Advantage: monopoly.
MS is moving into TV top boxes, gameplayers, cellualr phones, (about all things electronic or entertaining), etc... After they drive the competition out by selling below costs (IE was 'free', remember?) the price then watch the costs of those devices climb well above competitive pricing. No competition, no price retstraints.
Including a 'feature' is illegal if you use it to restrain of trade, which is illegal. The problem, my mentally challanged friend, isn't competition from 'bigger' companies, it is illegal and/or unethical competition.
How is it any different than Red Hat bundling Mozilla and mplayer with their distro?
It's different because Red Hat doesn't have a 90% or higher share of any market. Under United States, and presumably European Union, anti-trust laws the rules change when a company achieves a certain (unspecified) level of market dominance.
I remember thinking during the Microsoft anti-trust trial that Gates, Balmer, etc. never really accepted this fact. They just couldn't understand that actions that were perfectly legal for the Microsoft of 1985 were illegal for the Microsoft of 1995. (Some of the "free marketroids" on Slashdot seem to have the same difficulty.)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Hello folks,
there are two different issues here, which got intermingled with the usual religious war.
Issue # 1: Can the European Commission act as it is doing?
Reply: yes, simply because the EC Treaty explicitely empowers it to do so, and naturally, also provides remedies to challenge any Commission decision (taking the case to the European Court of Justice). It can levy a substantial fine too. End of story-no further soul searching required on this branch.
Issue # 2: Is it (ethically, financially, politically, technically, whatever) right to do so?
Reply: Here waters are murkier. Some militants in the USA will claim that M$ is a good company that generates profits, other European militants will claim M$ is pure, concentrated evil (remember the Fifth Element?). As in most cases in life, probably reality is gray, neither black nor white.
What matters to me is that M$ is unquestionably an innovation obstacle, as it attempts continuously to impose proprietary standards by using its de facto OS monopoly.
Any economist will confirm that far from helping innovation, a totally deregulated 'free market' leads to monopoly. In the USA the rule of law depends on the administration, and thus what the Clinton administration had begun to do was undone by the GW administration.
M$ embodies this simple observation and therefore its monopoly should be hampered. It can be done (remember IBM in the '70s? - I know, I was already around).
Thufir Hawat
Part-time Mentat