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."
When MSN Messenger starts, it opens an Internet Explorer window with some advertainment. If you click on any of the links in that window, they also open Internet Explorer. My default browser is Mozilla.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
[sarcasm]
Microsoft not complying with a settlement order? Say it ain't so, as there is no precedent for such a thing.
[/sarcasm]
Govt: MS, you are not giving users a choice here.
MS: "But your honor, we are giving users a choice. They can use IE for shop for music online or just not shop."
Ahhhh, the MS way.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
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.
A Microsoft representative said "they believe they have adhered to the agreement."
He then turned away from the camera and said "If you don't like it, you can always take us to court"... and then he softly snickered to himself.
Microsoft still evil. Film at 11.
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!
Shocked, I say, to discover that there are violations of the agreement here!
"Your bribe money, sir."
"Thank you."
"Shocked I say!"
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
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
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..."
The browser wars are over. What web browser you use no longer determines the operating system you employ. The point of the anit-trust suit was lost by the fact that by the trial came before a judge the technology in question was already out dated and the point of the suit moot.
If the government officials want to do something worth while, why don't they explore how M$'s changes to the CIFS licensing agreement are in violation of their agreement, since they make it difficult for non-windows machines (aka Samba) to interact with Window's network resources.
Or better yet, why don't the government officials fire themselves and put my tax dollars to better use, like education, roads, or even buying cheese.
-Runz
just how sharply Microsoft had their wrist slapped. I mean really. That wrist stung for over 15 minutes. There was a red mark that lasted at least until dinner. Microsoft had trouble typing for the rest of the evening. I personally believe that Microsoft has really learned their lesson this time. I feel comfortable going on vacation and leaving them here alone, with the keys to the Porsche and the liquor cabinet unlocked. I'm confident that they now understand to respect the rights of other companies and that they won't give them wedgies and leave them hanging from the fence. If we can't trust our own Microsoft, then who can we trust?
I don't get it. In an article ran not too long ago M$ 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
you mean companies are allowed to take advantage of customers who don't care, by using their monopoly in one industry (OS) to a competative advantage in another industry (online music sales)?
Oops, I forgot, thats called abusing the market, and its codified in law precicely because consumer apathy (or rather the fact that consumers have to live their life and contribute to humanity instead of constantly wondering whether or not they are supporting a monopoly) is not an excuse to abuse markets.
"Old man yells at systemd"
If you notice, the shop for music online feature leads to several different music retailers. One of which is buymusic.com; a site which ONLY accepts internet explorer. Of course that doesn't make what they're doing right at all. BuyMusic.com's IE on Windows only policy is just MS trying to further lock people into the windows platform.
Photos.
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.
My default browser under MacOS9 is Mozilla 1.3.1. MSIE does not exist on my Mac. I have, however, installed Outlook Express and MSN Messenger.
Whenever I click on a link within either of these two programs, an attempt is made to launch MSIE and not the default browser. Of course, nothing happens because both of these programs unsurprisingly launch only MSIE for this function.
Since this is MacOS, are they allowed to do this kind of thing? I assume "maybe" but if not, where do I submit my complaint?
itunes and napster allow you to use the default browser, which could be mozilla or opera or netscape or even IE. they aren't an alternative to IE, they are an alternative to using microsoft's music thing. microsoft is deceiving windows users into thinking that their default browser is whatever you set as it when it's really only the default browser for non-microsoft software. that's what the problem is.
not so necessary disclaimer: i am a microsoft windows user, and i was an IE/eudora user until about a week ago when i installed mozilla for both web and email. i do not hate microsoft products, i just hate their ways. i find windows 2000 to be a great OS (no joke here).
please me, have no regrets.
I use and love IE becasue if its intregration into Windows. I like that I can type in a URL anywhere and I get there. The problem I have is that my daughter got a few viruses due to those damn IE holes just by browsing websites. I only go to sites I trust so I do not mind the danger but I cannot tell here which sites are good and bad so I installed Firebird for her and told windes to deny access to IE. Well guess what if you happen to type in a URL in a Explorer windows it goes to the site in IE. I thought it would launch the default application for URL. So I told here never to do that and to first click the flame icon (firebird) before browsing the web.
When is the Slashdot community going abandon it's zealotry and recognize these fundamental truths?
1) Apples are only for graphic artists
2) Linux is 20 year old technology
3) Sun has the best interest of the open source community at heart
4) Microsoft is a fair-dealing, inovative company.
<disclaimer>
Come on guys. This one should be obvious. Do I really have to do one? Oh, okay. It's sarcasm. There. Disclaimed.
</disclaimer>
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?
Perhaps it is not I who is desensitised, but you who is hypersensitive to something as trivial as this.
I don't enjoy being forced to use a bug ridden software package that could, should I browse to the wrong site, allow a remote attacker to root my box.
So yeah, I am "hypersensitive".
Here's a clue, free of charge: It's your computer. Not MS's, Not the RIAA's, not Apple's and not the MPAA's. Yours. You may do with it what you wish, and if that means allowing MS to tell you what apps you get to use, that's your choice.
Note, however, that that would not be my choice.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
SunPin wrote:
Without voice dictation, I can't move to Linux so if you planned to tell me just that, try offering a suggestion instead.
Yeah, dictation on Linux is in a pretty sorry state, and I don't see it getting out of that state without still yet more academic development.
However the latest version of ViaVoice is now available for Mac OS X. That's a serious step up from Windows in stability and system quality.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
A Microsoft representative said they believe they have adhered to the agreement.
Tobacco execs "believe" smoking does not cause any harm.
GWB "believes" Saddam was behind 9/11.
I "believe" I am the Queen of England.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I'm fairly certain that Microsoft representative drove away from giving that statement fully believing he or she was riding the back of a flying pig.
is slashdot auto-highlighting spelling errors now?
Does it really matter which browser opens up?
It matters to me when I click a link, expecting Firebird to open, and I'm instead greeted with all the IE crap like popups, boxes asking permission to install Gator, etc...
My copy of Outlook has this "feature", and I hate it. MS needs to learn that I set my default browser to something else for a reason.
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.
43% of Americans believe they've been abducted by a UFO.
Nearly 33% of Americans believe the moon landings were faked.
Beliefs a funny things, at times. Since they are not statements of fact, but merely statements of thought, the only way they can be "wrong" is if they don't believe what they say they do.
Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs aren't even knowledge. Microsoft can know, perfectly well, that they're in violation, but believe that they are not. This is entirely possible, and not even unusual in people. That's why I tend to hang out with machines.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What about all that "Windows users expect choice" mumbo-jumbo? Way to throw a boomerrang, fellas!
Maybe Microsoft needs to fix their store so that it is compatible with other browsers, but it only hurts other browsers if Microsoft uses those browsers when the store doesn't support them.
track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!
They believe..whatever they want to believe.
Sorry, I saw Reloaded again last night...
Sosumi.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
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.
Whatever happened to the three strike rule?
1996
Feds: You agree not to bundle anymore right?
Microsoft: Yes
1999
Feds: You broke a rule again, and put Netscape out of business. You won't do this again right?
Microsoft (in 2002) : Yes, now that we own the browser market and have killed Java and Netscape, we promise to never do it again!
2003
Feds: Dude! We talked to you about this!
Microsoft: Yes, but iTunes, Napster, and so many others are STILL in business! Oh, and we're NOT a monopoly! Give us a few years to sort this out will you?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Mozilla is not under a court order.
Microsoft is, and it's because they have been violating antitrust law.
Your point is like being under house arrest and pointing to your neighber "but he doesn't have to wear the ankle beacon, he get's to leave -his- house".
-pyrrho
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