Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Antitrust Compliance Questioned
rocketjam writes "Federal and State regulators overseeing Microsoft's compliance with their antitrust agreement with the government, are questioning whether Windows XP's "Shop for Music Online" feature violates the agreement's terms. Specifically, the feature invokes Microsoft Internet Explorer, even if the user has selected a different web browser as their default browser. A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement."
Well, with the release of the Apple iTunes and them selling 1M songs proving that the model works suddenly MS is gonna want to come in and try to dominate the market and shove Apple over..
It is just what they always do..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
If you're going to try and bash MS, Taco, will you please post a story that actually shows MS doing something properly evil/insecure rather than just opening IE instead of the user's preferred browser?
Yes, folks, we've become this desentized to MS crap.
I will use whatever browser I want, thank you very much. I don't want any application deciding what to do for me.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement.
In as much as Microsoft thinks they have a manifest destiny to conquer and subdue the entire computing industry, they certainly "believe" they have complied with an agreement they didn't want, fought against, and ignore whenever possible.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You can bet they wont rush THAT fix onto windowsupdate.com
you mean people who actually care whether they are browsing with IE or mozilla use buy now links in windows media player?
did you forget to take your meds?
If you read the agreement carefully, you will find that they are at least
... [snip]
minimally compliant. I believe this is the relevant section...
Microsoft shall publically indicate their agreement to undertake actions as
deemed necessary by the court to effect a reduction in the above cited
anticompetitive practices and shall not
If you read carefully, you'll note the language "publically indicate", which
Microsoft clearly has done. Therefore, they are technically in compliance.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Think about it, if MS wanted to stick it to the other browsers they really SHOULD use them everywhere like with Media Player and Messenger launches, etc.
With all of the proprietary crud that IE uses to make those things work the third party browsers would crash and burn (assuming MS only changed which browser gets launched and not anything else about the technology to actually support them).
Then MS could say "See judge, we told you other browsers were crap. Let us switch back to IE for the poor helpless users and all of their troubles will be over..."
Its a joke - i thought the whole idea of the settlement was that you had choice over programs. Can you use a browser other than IE to access windows Update? NO! If there was one thing that you should be able to access in something other than IE - then that should be it. Ok - so FB clearly cant do activex stuff- fine - lets make it so FB can do windows update- and all the other browsers- Opera, Mozilla...
I don't get it. In an article ran not too long ago M$ complains about the incompatibility with Apples iTunes with their music service. Then, not surprisingly, they turn around and basically return to monopolistic practices. I know what is going on, M$ knew they were doing this and figured they'd wait until they got slapped on the wrist and then they will fix it. I wonder how many other hidden treasures like this exist.
You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
I'm not an MS fan, but this is a little silly. Anti-trust or no anti-trust, if Microsoft wants to give their media player a shop option that points to their shop using their browser, let them. What next, do you want to be able to set default shops so when you click on the button, it opens your favorite music store in Mozilla? I mean, that's just a little silly...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
but what do the feds call iTunes, Napster 2.0, etc?
How about "not subject to anti-trust litigation".
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
iTunes uses IE as its browser no matter what browser you choose. Maybe it's because the functionality of iTMS requires IE or Safari, as other browsers are not supported.
Preach about W3C standards all you like, but I've seen some _strict_ code and there's still issues between Safari, Opera, IE, Moz, and Netscape. Limited browser support, when reasonable, is a great way to keep costs down. It just makes sense that the Microsoft Music Store would require IE, just as much as iTunes does (for Windows users at least).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Microsoft originally got in trouble not for just being a monopoly, but for abusing it's OS monopoly to crush competition in the Browser market.
Now while everyone is crying over their Mozilla not launching instead of IE (come on babies... big freakin deal), the fact that Microsoft is abusing it's OS monopoly to go after online music sales and online search engines slips quietly under the radar.
I know you really love those Mozilla skins and Tabbing... but follow the money to see where the real crime is happening.
If the browser wars are over then why is Microsoft highjacking browser preference settings?
The browser wars are over in the same way that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over and the Camp David Accords brought peace to the Middle East.
The world is becoming more and more browser based, like it or not, and he who controls the browser will control the platform, which right now looks to be the network.
That said, Jean-Louis Gasse was right when he told the DoJ they were prosecuting the wrong behaviour.
KFG
I hate Windows as much as anyone, but... what the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?
Are you seriously telling me that I should go into my corner store, plunk down $750 on a case, mobo, hard drive, stick of RAM, video card, and hear "I'd like to take your $149 for this gaming system you're building, Mr. Tackhead, but I've already sold my 70% of Windows XP Licenses this month. If either you or the two customers behind you would like to buy Red Hat for $49.99 and this surplus Pentium I for $99.99 and install it, right here, and sign this binding agreement that you'll continue to use it for the rest of the lifetime of the machine, my Compliance Report to the State Commissioner for Operating System Market Share will report the sale of an additional Linux license, which will permit me to sell another three Windows licenses before the SCOSMS fines kick in. Thank you for your co-operation in these trying times."
I say again - a state-mandated market share for operating systems - what the fucking fuck fuck?
IANAL. If the argument is correct above, basically, yes. When MS does it, it's bundling. When Yahoo does it, it's just poor service.
What about all that "Windows users expect choice" mumbo-jumbo? Way to throw a boomerrang, fellas!
On the other hand, the question of whether MS is in compliance isn't a fact -- it's an interpretation of law, which is really nothing more than what a judge "believes." It's a little different from the examples you gave (where people are clearly in possession of beliefs that are contradicted by hard facts).
I know I know, that might not be an option - but that's just more fuel for the anti-trust fire :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
From a consumer standpoint the problem is NOT that this "Shop for Music" feature included with Windows XP only opens IE.
The problem IS that this "Shop for Music" is even in the OS to begin with.
I don't need this crap, I don't want this crap, and it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be forced to have to deal with embedded advertising to use an OS, or an application we paid for.
because Microsoft has an extra agreement, which they got instead of heavy penalties they would otherwise have to get for violating antitrust law. These extra requirements above and beyond normal business procedure are because of THEIR action and are specifically a "lighter" sentence. It's the easy way out, but it's still too hard?
If Sun is stupid enough to get caught violating the law and forced into such a settlement, only then should you bother to attack Sun for doing likewise.
Sun, for all it's many faults, for all it's death wish death spiral I think it's now engaged in... they are great at interoperability and have never tried to break interoperability. If Microsoft followed the same philosophy their domination of the market alone would not have gotten them into trouble.
-pyrrho