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.
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.
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.
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..."
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?
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...
isn't windowsupdate another thing that requires IE? i think that's pretty bad. get your security updates, but use an insecure browser to do it with. makes a lot of sense to me...
please me, have no regrets.
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?
I entirely agree, wanting my personal computer to do what I want it to do is just so unreasonable. Next thing you know people will want to be able to program the damn things themselves. Where will this madness end.
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.
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
First, the browser used to display the iTunes Music Store is embedded in the iTunes application itself; it doesn't launch a separate browser process like the Microsoft "My Music" link does.
Second, if iTunes is using the embedded IE rendering control to display the Music Store (and others are claiming it doesn't), what does that violate? Lots of Windows applications, from both MS and third parties, use the HTML rendering control -- it's a system service, and a useful one (Apple copied it with WebKit, which is Safari's underlying engine). For example, Outlook Express, which comes with Windows, uses the IE rendering control to display the content of e-mail messages (as does Outlook, as does the entire Windows help system, etc.), but that is not a violation of anything because it's not forcing you to use the Internet Explorer application proper.
Third, and by far most importantly, Apple does not make Windows, so Apple cannot possibly be guilty of violating an anti-trust agreement Microsoft entered into.
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.
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.